Reply #34: How would this story possibly tell you what Kucinich intended to do with the answers he got, if any?

[No Elephants]

There is an investigative process. There is no reason to assume that someone whose job includes investigating will not follow it. And with absolutely no evidence, there is no reason for you to condemn Kucinich for simply asking a Libyan bureaucrat questions--if that is even true. After all, according to you, anyone who would even ask the person questions has poor judgement.

"If he sent simular letters to the NTC in Benghazi, then let's see those."

Who said he sent letters to the Ntc? Are they in the OP article? If not, how do you suggest I provide them? And, by the way, how did it become my responsiblity to produce them?


"Somehow I dout there were any because he was clearly looking for "evidence" to support for his pre-conceived ideological position on the matter."


As I've posted before, He was against the war. That is no secret. The US already wanted the war. That was no secret. He had no need to come up with reasons to support our involvement.

And his questions were directed to the enemies of the rebels. You are surprised that he did not ask Gaddafi's son for a list of the good deeds of the rebels, or reasons why their attacks on Gaddafi and his family and regime were unjustified?

Can we please be reasonable?

"I also might point out that when a Democratic president attempts to change the detestable US record of support for dictators, especially one that cannot be said to have been in the interests of any kind of stability, then well it's all abut the oil."

Are you directing that at me? Have you seen me post that? But, yes, I have seen posts to that effect, regarding as to Democratic Presidents, Republican Presidents and foreign heads of state.

I've also seen about an equal number of posts taking a different position. If you only see one kind of post and only about Obama, I submit your perception needs work.